"The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," Ronald Reagan said on many occasions, including a speech at Vanderbilt University when I was an undergraduate.

I'm not so sure. But at least the conservatism of Sen. Robert Taft, Sen. Barry Goldwater, and Reagan stood for a limited constitutional government in opposition to the federal aggrandizement of the New Deal and the Great Society. Back in the FDR-JFK-LBJ years, conservatives even stood for congressional government and against the imperial presidency.

But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama? President Bush expanded entitlements, increased federal spending by more than a trillion dollars, federalized education, launched "nation-building" projects in two far-flung regions, and accumulated more power in the White House than any previous president.

Yet the masses assembled at the Conservative Political Action Conference chanted "Four More Years!" at him in the eighth year of his reign. Is that really a record that conservatives wanted more of?

Steven F. Hayward suggests in today's edition of The Washinton Post that one reason for conservatism's having gotten off track, one that I've heard from other, mostly older, conservatives: A movement once led by William F. Buckley Jr., Russell Kirk, and Milton Friedman now gets its intellectual direction from talk show hosts and bloggers. Where are the tomes of yesteryear?

Well, it's a fast-paced, market-driven world. If celebrities and rabble-rousing are what sell, then we'd better hope for some smart ideas on the airwaves. And it's not like conservatives are alone in this trend.

Buckley jousted with John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter face off with Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore. Six years ago the Boston Globe noted that liberal books were, at least briefly, dominating the New York Times bestseller list.

Along with Hillary Clinton's autobiography, those books were "Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places," and "Stupid White Men." Not exactly a sign of the intellectual depth of American liberalism.

The good news about the Obama era is that the president has returned the issue of the size, scope, and power of the federal government to center stage. And that in turn has revived the long-dormant small-government spirit in American conservatism.

In that regard, I'm more positive than Hayward is about the "tea party" movement. True, it is somewhat "unfocused," without a clear "connection to a concrete ideology." But it reflects and galvanizes the natural American antipathy to big government.

Now the responsibility of the conservative media and political leaders is to give the tea partiers a positive cause to rally around, by shining light on scholars with good ideas. There are plenty of free-market intellectuals today, far more than in the era when Milton Friedman dined alone. Glenn Beck does indeed sometimes devote significant time to a single intellectual; other talk show hosts should do the same.

Conservatives often prefer the prudent and cautious spirit of Edmund Burke and F. A. Hayek to the more libertarian and "progressive" vision of Thomas Jefferson. But neither Burke nor Hayek believed simply in standing athwart history, crying "Stop!"

Burke, after all, was a Whig, not a Tory, and a supporter of the American Revolution. And Hayek insisted that he was not a conservative:

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."

He called himself a liberal, and he thought that Margaret Thatcher, with her vigorous program of free-market reform, was also a liberal. By whatever name, modern American conservatives would do well to take to heart Hayek's rallying cry:

"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible."

The trick for 21st-century American conservatives, conservatives in a country founded in libertarian revolution, is to decide which traditions are worth holding on to. I would suggest as a good first rule that we allow the natural evolution of society and market, while limiting coercive intervention into those processes.

Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government.

BS. We will no longer allow the Left to tell us what conservatism is, or define us as some sort of squishy “intellectuals” so they can then run roughshod over everything decent. You can’t fight Leftist fire with gentle breaths. Natural social change? The Left has never advocated natural change. They are all about forcing the issue, “...whether you like it or not!” To hell with these people. Let ‘em keep pushing until the system breaks completely, or they force a street war.

2
posted on 01/01/2010 12:29:46 AM PST
by Clock King
(There's no way to fix D.C.)

The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," Ronald Reagan said

He also said, "I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy."

"Fortress America is just what Lenin wanted us to havewhether it is world policeman or not. You know, Lenin said the Communists will take Eastern Europe, they will organize the hordes of Asia, he said they will then move into Latin America, and he said the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, will fall into their outstretched hands like overripe fruit. And thats all that Fortress America is. Now, you dont have to come through someones beachheadyou just go over them with missiles; and one of these days, under the present policies of the Congress, the United States will stand alone as Lenin envisioned it and then face the ultimatum from the enemy."

"Once you are going to commit yourself to a combat role and youre going to ask young men to fight and die for your country, then you have a moral obligation as a nation to throw the full resources of the nation behind them and to win that war as quickly as possible and get it over with..."

Seems he disagreed with much of what you Paulies embrace today.

As much as you try to highjack it, you are neither teh rightful owners of Reagan's legacy nor of the term conservative.

you only fool yourselves in thinking so.

4
posted on 01/01/2010 12:37:47 AM PST
by DakotaRed
(What happened to the country I fought for?)

It all comes down to what it is you wish to conserve. There were no real Golden Ages (although we may well have just lived through something that might soon be called that) and so one is left either to cherry-pick individual aspects of a given moment or devolve strictly to principle, which is often only a very crude guide.

Burke certainly thought so. Many of the things he wished to conserve were quite contrary to his spoken principles, and his defense of them in his Reflections was that these customs and usages served purposes other than that which they were instituted to address. It was, if you like, the first treatment of government on biological, rather than mechanical, modeling.

That's the real challenge to conservatism that progressives do not share - one must, while one is choosing and defending one's principles, recognize that the world is more complicated than the hoped-for result, and that "progress" may be backward as well as forward, and that principle must acknowledge its own inadequacy in the face of what really is. That does not mean that principle is to be dispensed with, it only means that it has limitations. Many libertarians find this uncomfortable. Many ex-libertarians who are still conservatives find this difficult to explain. Edmund Burke did as good a job at it as anyone has to my knowledge. For those curious as to why this fierce defender of the American revolution should speak in defense of the ancien regime, that's why. IMHO, of course.

This not-so-veiled article was another lame attempt to castigate and separate social conservatives from conservatism in general. Abortion, legalized drugs, gay marriage, etc? Just accept it in order to keep power, right?

The truly brain-dead conservatives are those who think liberty can exist in a morally bankrupt society. You gotta have both liberty and individual morality.

Some of the so-called conservative/libertarian (RINO) intellectuals are as removed from reality as the ivory tower leftists.

You know, Lenin said the Communists will take Eastern Europe, they will organize the hordes of Asia, he said they will then move into Latin America, and he said the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, will fall into their outstretched hands like overripe fruit.

Umm, looks to me like he was correct. The masses were brainwashed an invasion would be with the force of arms. Americans thought the commies were stupid. Apparently not, as they invaded through radio, print, and tv media, education, entertainment, and local, state, and federal political positions.

I'm all for the ability and necessity to project power for the interests of the American People. Anything more seems to invite globalism which is exactly what we're fighting now.

"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage." ... "Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government."

Keep your generation of whores and perverts, Boaz. I've seen what happens when moral men found a nation. Let's see what sort of fiscally responsible nation you can build with addicts, diseased fops, and dead babies.

I think if you take Walter Williams approach that any law passed by congress has to apply to the government, you will get pretty close. Semantic discussions about what is libertarianism and what is conservatism don’t really help much. What we need is limited government, a peeling away of the onion, layer by layer. We need the government to stop picking winners and losers. Eliminate totally most government agencies not specifically provided for by the constitution. And finally and perhaps most importantly, a return to sound money, the classical gold standard, That way there is no back door lending to the government by the fed which allows it to print money to pay for programs that the majority of citizens would not willingly pay taxes for. Once the dollar becomes a true warehouse receipt for an amount of gold or silver on deposit with the fed, that can be freely exchanged, that’s the end of big government.

The unfortunate part is that for this to occur there must be a complete collapse of the existing fractional reserve system. Then one county needs to bite the bullit and adopt a gold standard.

This was the problem with the Reagan Revolution, it never got to the underlying problem of expanding government, which is caused directly or indirectly by an expanding money supply. During Reagan’s term, and I am large fan of his, Milton Friedman lamented that not one single government department was eliminated. After the initial high interest rates started declining, the money supply started increasing again and large deficits were run.

It may seem unlikely that a gold standard will be reimplemented, however, the current fiat money systems in an advanced state of decline all over the world. And there is really no way to save it.

12
posted on 01/01/2010 1:01:22 AM PST
by appeal2
(Government is not the solution, it is the problem and eventually the enemy.)

Semantic discussions about what is libertarianism and what is conservatism dont really help much.

I agree completely, and I agree with your point about Reagan, too. There was an individual who believed quite sincerely in the reduction of government and when faced with a choice between winning the Cold War and adhering to the principle that the government shouldn't even be involved in it, chose the pragmatic course and won it. But the government expanded.

That's a perfect example of the occasional conflict between principle and action with an eye to a stated result. We will pay - are paying - for that expansion of government. Was the benefit of winning the Cold War worth it? Was it obtainable without it? One can only speculate. But I'd be reluctant to second-guess the guy who was there.

Reagan, (as does Palin), adopted the wheat of an ideology, discarding the chaff.It is disingenuous, and perhaps duplicitous, for libertarians to attempt to claim him as one of their own.Unless of course the libertarians now advocate school prayer, outlawing abortion, and America's obligation to help, if necessary by force, those people oppressed under tyranny.If I remember correctly, Reagan, (as is Palin), was a member of the Republican Party.

It is disingenuous, and perhaps duplicitous, for libertarians to attempt to claim him as one of their own.

It is a complete lie and tells you what children they are, Reagan was a republican.

The best year that libertarians ever had? The most united that libertarians ever were? The politician that the libertarians truly united to defeat? It was 1980 and the libertarians were running against Ronald Reagan.

>>>The next two elections are too serious to get into these squabbles that are intended to do nothing but split the Republican Party. You can bet your last dollar thats not what Reagan wanted.

Reagan only succeeded after Bill Buckley and company purged the Birchers from the Republican party, ending their efforts to undermine any possible successful Republican. Paulism represents a similar malignancy.

A good read about market distortions that result from corrupted government regulatory actions; ‘Regulatory Sneak Attack’ Mises Daily-September 16, 1999 by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.http://mises.org/daily/297

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities."

A circle to this jerk.

24
posted on 01/01/2010 2:26:35 AM PST
by NoLibZone
(Be of good cheer, could have been worse - McCain could have won! If Reagan rises & runs I'll vote.)

But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama?

EXCUSE ME???

Sheeesh, that is a full-time--do or die--task, that is if we don't want to see our Great Republic Destroyed and re-made into simply another UN-Controlled, Turd-World, Craphole!

When is the megalomaniac, FASCIST, Authoritarian, Man-Child, and his Sycophant, Fellow Travelers in Congress even going to allow the Republicans to sit at the table or introduce any of their own agenda???

Ya can't play baseball if the other team is the only one that has bats, balls and gloves, get to make up the rules and control the umpires.

The ONLY thing I'll agree with is that we have a paucity of Leadership (either within or outside) the Gov't to lead us Conservatives--PROBABLY because there are so FEW "Real" Conservatives among them, and that is whey so many turn to Talk Radio and other venues for their "fix!"

25
posted on 01/01/2010 2:30:49 AM PST
by Conservative Vermont Vet
((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that youre doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we dont each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

26
posted on 01/01/2010 2:31:08 AM PST
by NoLibZone
(Be of good cheer, could have been worse - McCain could have won! If Reagan rises & runs I'll vote.)

Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation,

There is nothing natural about this social change...and if a younger generation thinks that being taken care of like a child from cradle to grave is good change then it is a problem of liberal programming in education ...not conservatism...

29
posted on 01/01/2010 2:55:42 AM PST
by Niteflyr
("Just because something is free doesn't mean it's good for you".)

Actually, we need another Andrew Jackson. If I remember correctly, Jackson was the ONLY president who succeeded in running the Fedgov "in the black". In his administration, the existing national debt was paid off completely.

And, IMO, Sarah Palin is more like Jackson than any other former president.

"Conservatism, ... in its paternalistic,... with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities."

This guy has an axe to grind over gay marriage, but just won't say it under any circumstances, lest he is exposed for what he really is...

These pseudo-secularists will never admit that evolution is only possible through HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

Conservatives cannot conceptualize that this scientific fact is confirmed by Genesis and can be thrown right back into the faces of these fake liberaltarians whose 'holy grail' is state sanctioned faggot weddings with all the social welfare garbage they want to attach to it.

CATO is a 501(c) tax exempt corporation, and a beneficiary of the welfare state just like all the other leftist "non-profits."

"Conservatism, ... in its paternalistic,... with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities."

This guy has an axe to grind over gay marriage, but just won't say it under any circumstances, lest he is exposed for what he really is...

These pseudo-secularists will never admit that evolution is only possible through HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

Conservatives cannot conceptualize that this scientific fact is confirmed by Genesis and can be thrown right back into the faces of these fake liberaltarians whose 'holy grail' is state sanctioned faggot weddings with all the social welfare garbage they want to attach to it.

CATO is a 501(c) tax exempt corporation, and a beneficiary of the welfare state just like all the other leftist "non-profits."

Umm, looks to me like he was correct. The masses were brainwashed an invasion would be with the force of arms. Americans thought the commies were stupid. Apparently not, as they invaded through radio, print, and tv media, education, entertainment, and local, state, and federal political positions.

And let's not forget massive illegal immigration. The invasion force is already here.

37
posted on 01/01/2010 3:56:20 AM PST
by PapaBear3625
(Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)

What is fracturing our country is all the legistation that is targeted to help or penalize particular segments of our society. Countering this practice would force both parties back to a more representative practice of governing.

Well, first of all, there is no conservative party, so I feel it only fair to pin big government Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, both Bush’s, and even Lincoln on Republicans/Conservatives. ( Or, thus Conservatives are just not able to learn from history, and haven’t noticed the GOP, or are whipped, doormats even within the GOP and thus have no business guiding anyone else, unless it is in being political doormats for the last century, or more.)

Another major, gross failure of conservatives is their political lack of involvement. Most of, if not all, court fights and victories, few as there have been, on property rights and gun rights have been by libertarians, with libertarian money, and libertarian lawyers.

Zero, no, none, by ‘conservatives’.

Further, you are pretty ignorant in that there is amongst social conservative a very strong strain of support for big government, big taxes, big bureaucracy, rules, regulations.
Much of conservatives is a inter warfare with the left over who and what a unConstitutional state ( Federal or otherwise ) should do.

In short, I see a lot of conservative opposition to the left, but only in the way the Mensheviks opposed the Bolsheviks, or the Spartacus League fought with the Nazis.
All supported a large, person and family warping by the state, for the state.

Ronald Reagan was much more of a libertarian than a conservative. Milton Friedman, Von Miese, Hayek, Rand were commonly quoted.

Another thing. The left is very idea driven, albeit poorly. That is where you defeat leftists. I don’t view present day conservatives as able or educated to enter leftists arenas and defeat them.

I’m thinking half or more so called conservatives are as addicted to suckling off the government teat as any Section 8 Baby Mommy.

Conservative talk the rugged ‘We’ll eat grass’ game, but shoulder up to the government trough like anyone else.

So, in short, conservatives have been steady losers the last hundred years, have little or no will or ability or interest in entering the arena of ideas, and all bald talk aside, haven’t been seen in many of the court fights to wrestle back encroached liberties, that they didn’t successfully at the time prevent from being usurped and in many cases were enthusiastic supporters of the usurpation.

40
posted on 01/01/2010 4:35:39 AM PST
by Leisler
(We don't need a third party we need a conservative second party.)

He also believed in the inherent goodness of America and its people, and did everything in his power to protect us. He treated allies with respect, and turned his back on trash like Arafat. He hunted the murderers of 9/11 down with a vengeance. When he committed troops to Iraq, he never wavered in his support. The Israelis consider him the most friendly American President since Reagan.

He was and still is reviled by liberals because he was so conservative. Anyone that doesn't consider him conservative, is wrong. He might not have been "conservative" enough to satisfy paultards, anarchists, or borderbots, but he was very conservative in any honest comparison.

I agree Boaz is a moonbat...he supports gay marriage, legalization of drugs, and is anti military.

Whew! Lots of word games. I do like the idea of an open season on politicians, and I will do anything possible to put Sarah or “a Sarah” wherever she wants to go to set the charges and push the plunger on boat anchors like the National Department of Education. If we could create enough open space in the District of Corruption, we might be able to reestablish a constitutional republic.

44
posted on 01/01/2010 5:08:50 AM PST
by JohnQ1
("(BHO) can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - A Lincoln)

Another major, gross failure of conservatives is their political lack of involvement. Most of, if not all, court fights and victories, few as there have been, on property rights and gun rights have been by libertarians, with libertarian money, and libertarian lawyers.

Zero, no, none, by conservatives.

What an absolute baseless bucket of excrement.

Not surprising, Leisler, since you give no reference, no data. (And, although I once worked with groups such as Libertarians for Life and the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, I'm beginning to lose any surprise when so-called "Libertarians" will write trash backed with nothing but their own hot air and based on either a very short memory without regard to history or fact and/or a lack of research into the subject and what has transpired in real life before their own interest.)

Do a little research on the Conservative efforts of the FreeMarket in Texas (our version of the Family Resource Council), The Justice Foundation (used to be the Texas Justice Foundation), the Christian Medical Association, and any number of pro-life organizations which have been forced to protect the right not to be killed, the right not to have liberty infringed upon by re-defining who is worthy of being given public protection (who is human enough).

And then, step back a bit and look at the lawsuits, activism, and plain ol' fights that those of us here on FR have been engaging with the left for the last 14 years or so. Jim Robinson is not a "(L)ibertarian," although he is capable of forming a coalition, to function in order to support common ground and common goals shared by some Conservatives and some (L)ibertarians.

Our efforts are often mistaken for those of (L)ibertarians, when in fact they are (l)ibertarian conservative (small government with unconditional protection of the right to life, liberty and property) and illustrate or take advantage of the common beliefsof Conservatives and some Libertarians.

45
posted on 01/01/2010 5:27:01 AM PST
by hocndoc
(http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))

“”Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism;”

This is just not true. Conservatism, far from adoring power, maintains the less government the better, with more autonomy for the free market. And it in no way resembles Socialism!

48
posted on 01/01/2010 5:40:21 AM PST
by RoadTest
(Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.